CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Derideo_Te]

Mea Culpa. I posted in here earlier not realizing I was in the CDZ. I try not to post in this arena.

I admire the integrity of anyone who can admit when they have made a mistake.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'd hate to think what an activist liberal court would do to some murky attempts to change it.

Or vice versa as in Citizens United.

The current Constitution is pretty robust and if we can deal with the current undermining of the role of the government OF the people and FOR the people We the People could get on with our lives.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I'd hate to think what an activist liberal court would do to some murky attempts to change it.

Or vice versa as in Citizens United.

The current Constitution is pretty robust and if we can deal with the current undermining of the role of the government OF the people and FOR the people We the People could get on with our lives.

Strangely enough, I kind of agree. I was not suggesting that I would be pleased with an activist CONSERVATIVE Court "interpreting" words that don't really call for "interpretation."

There may be times and places that make the meaning of Constitutional language unclear. And therefore there is a proper place for judicial interpretation. But it should be done rarely and very cautiously and with lots of honesty and fidelity to the very PURPOSES of the Constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

Mea Culpa. I posted in here earlier not realizing I was in the CDZ. I try not to post in this arena.

Wish you would Ilar. We need folks to participate in this discussion because I think it is an important discussion that needs to happen across the entire country. I put this thread in the CDZ in hopes we could have a grown up discussion free of the food fights and petty ideological or partisan ad hominem and personal sniping. But alas, due to a couple of individuals, such was not to be.

The "rules" of the cdz prevent us from speaking fully and with the same kind of spice we may use outside of the cdz. I stumble over that rule when I make the mistake of entering into the cdz because I fail to realize that I am IN the special arena.

If I see a member of this illustrious board using some ad hominem argument -- generally -- against all conservatives, for example, I might respond with the same style, not realizing that I am violating the rules. In reality, I am not sure why the other member isn't flagged on the play, too. But that's a kind of a non issue.

If I choose to post here realizing WHERE I am, I would try to comply with the rules. But it's so easy to slip-up, I usually avoid this arena when I realize the thread in question has been put up IN this arena.

The flagrant violations have just not been important enough to me to report. And I do understand that the civility requested in the CDZ is boring to a lot of USMB members. But I really did hope for an intelligent discussion of the concepts that should go into a reformed or revised Constitution of the United States of America or why the existing language is sufficient. I do think we are the last generation of Americans with any hope of accomplishing that which is why I think it so important that the discussion begin.

But oh well. If wishes were horses and all that. . . .

I agree. There's no reason to "report" anything. My issue is that if I am dopey enough to rise to some "bait" in a CDZ thread, I might get flagged on it. Maybe even justifiably so. But the other "offender" usually is not.

I confess to a certain lack of care in posting here since I rarely remember that a particular thread is IN a protected forum.

So, back to your OP:

I wouldn't alter the Preamble even though the turn of phrase "more perfect union" clearly doesn't make any sense.

Frankly, other than some AMENDMENTS, I wouldn't change any part of the Constitution. And I would be VERY cautious as to any proposed amendments, too. Even the crystal clear words of the Constitution get "interpreted." I'd hate to think what an activist liberal court would do to some murky attempts to change it.

It is the existing 'murkiness' that I hoped to address.

I don't have any problem with the existing Preamble either, BUT, if we are going to clear up some of the more loosely translated clauses of the existing Constitution, it made sense to me to reflect that in the Preamble. And believe me I have as much fear and trepidation as anybody of what certain activists would do with the Constitution given an opportunity to do so.

That is why this thread is not devoted to what 'language' should go into a improved or revised Constitution, but rather what concepts and principles should apply.

For instance, just two of many examples:

What is the 'general welfare'?
The leftists/statists/liberals/progressives/political class most often interpret that as social welfare or the obligation of the federal government to take care of the 'poor' and 'needy' or to enact rules and regulations for behavior or lifestyle that would be for the common good.

The rightwing/libertarians (little "L")/classical liberals/modern day conservatives most often interpret that as policies/regulations that recognize and protect the unalienable rights of the people and enable the private sector to be more innovative, productive, and prosperous.

The wide differences of opinion and broad interpretations of 'general welfare' have resulted in an enormous welfare state of unsustainable entitlements and continues to erode and chip away at our individual liberties, choices, options, and opportunities and moves us ever closer to a totalitarian government. The left mostly defends that as the righteous and good thing. The right mostly objects to that as a destructive and bad thing.

A reformed Constitution would clearly spell out what the 'general welfare' is.

What right to bear arms does the Second Amendment protect?

In the Founder's day, 'arms' consisted of muskets, single shot pistols, swords, knives, and cannon. And the right of the private citizen to have and utilize such weapons for his/her own purposes and self defense short of violating the rights of others was clear, understood, and considered inviolate.

Now 'arms' can range from air rifles to shotguns or hunting rifles to fully automatic rifles to machine guns to land mines to hand grenades to battle tanks to fighter jets to nuclear submarines and ICBMs. And various factions in America have very different points of view of which of these the private citizen should be able to own.

A reformed constitution would clearly spell out what the citizen's 'right to bear arms' constitutionally protects.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Mea Culpa. I posted in here earlier not realizing I was in the CDZ. I try not to post in this arena.

Wish you would Ilar. We need folks to participate in this discussion because I think it is an important discussion that needs to happen across the entire country. I put this thread in the CDZ in hopes we could have a grown up discussion free of the food fights and petty ideological or partisan ad hominem and personal sniping. But alas, due to a couple of individuals, such was not to be.

The "rules" of the cdz prevent us from speaking fully and with the same kind of spice we may use outside of the cdz. I stumble over that rule when I make the mistake of entering into the cdz because I fail to realize that I am IN the special arena.

If I see a member of this illustrious board using some ad hominem argument -- generally -- against all conservatives, for example, I might respond with the same style, not realizing that I am violating the rules. In reality, I am not sure why the other member isn't flagged on the play, too. But that's a kind of a non issue.

If I choose to post here realizing WHERE I am, I would try to comply with the rules. But it's so easy to slip-up, I usually avoid this arena when I realize the thread in question has been put up IN this arena.

The flagrant violations have just not been important enough to me to report. And I do understand that the civility requested in the CDZ is boring to a lot of USMB members. But I really did hope for an intelligent discussion of the concepts that should go into a reformed or revised Constitution of the United States of America or why the existing language is sufficient. I do think we are the last generation of Americans with any hope of accomplishing that which is why I think it so important that the discussion begin.

But oh well. If wishes were horses and all that. . . .

I agree. There's no reason to "report" anything. My issue is that if I am dopey enough to rise to some "bait" in a CDZ thread, I might get flagged on it. Maybe even justifiably so. But the other "offender" usually is not.

I confess to a certain lack of care in posting here since I rarely remember that a particular thread is IN a protected forum.

So, back to your OP:

I wouldn't alter the Preamble even though the turn of phrase "more perfect union" clearly doesn't make any sense.

Frankly, other than some AMENDMENTS, I wouldn't change any part of the Constitution. And I would be VERY cautious as to any proposed amendments, too. Even the crystal clear words of the Constitution get "interpreted." I'd hate to think what an activist liberal court would do to some murky attempts to change it.

It is the existing 'murkiness' that I hoped to address.

I don't have any problem with the existing Preamble either, BUT, if we are going to clear up some of the more loosely translated clauses of the existing Constitution, it made sense to me to reflect that in the Preamble. And believe me I have as much fear and trepidation as anybody of what certain activists would do with the Constitution given an opportunity to do so.

That is why this thread is not devoted to what 'language' should go into a improved or revised Constitution, but rather what concepts and principles should apply.

For instance, just two of many examples:

What is the 'general welfare'?
The leftists/statists/liberals/progressives/political class most often interpret that as social welfare or the obligation of the federal government to take care of the 'poor' and 'needy' or to enact rules and regulations for behavior or lifestyle that would be for the common good.

The rightwing/libertarians (little "L")/classical liberals/modern day conservatives most often interpret that as policies/regulations that recognize and protect the unalienable rights of the people and enable the private sector to be more innovative, productive, and prosperous.

The wide differences of opinion and broad interpretations of 'general welfare' have resulted in an enormous welfare state of unsustainable entitlements and continues to erode and chip away at our individual liberties, choices, options, and opportunities and moves us ever closer to a totalitarian government. The left mostly defends that as the righteous and good thing. The right mostly objects to that as a destructive and bad thing.

A reformed Constitution would clearly spell out what the 'general welfare' is.

What right to bear arms does the Second Amendment protect?

In the Founder's day, 'arms' consisted of muskets, single shot pistols, swords, knives, and cannon. And the right of the private citizen to have and utilize such weapons for his/her own purposes and self defense short of violating the rights of others was clear, understood, and considered inviolate.

Now 'arms' can range from air rifles to shotguns or hunting rifles to fully automatic rifles to machine guns to land mines to hand grenades to battle tanks to fighter jets to nuclear submarines and ICBMs. And various factions in America have very different points of view of which of these the private citizen should be able to own.

A reformed constitution would clearly spell out what the citizen's 'right to bear arms' constitutionally protects.

I will take the last two questions out of order. The right to bear arms has almost nothing at all to do with military service. How do I know? Historical and JUDICIAL analysis of the right to bear arms as reflected in the SCOTUS decisions in Heller and McDonald. Some very good scholarly analysis in those opinions. The bottom line is that we now see that the Second Amendment's guarantee was of a RIGHT that per-existed the Constitution. And those two SCOTUS decisions, taken as a whole, make it clear that the RIGHT is not so broad as to deny the government the ability to impose REASONABLE restrictions (such as licensing laws) provided that THOSE licensing laws do not become a back-door method for banning or prohibiting gun ownership. And the SCOTUS also opined that the primary right to be vindicated is weapon possession for home protection. On that last basis, I believe it is fair to say that the right to bear arms does not include tanks or nukes or grenades.

As to what is meant (and what was intended to be understood) by the phrase "general welfare," that is far too long a story to go into here. Suffice it to say that it is part of the PREAMBLE which gives guidance to interpreting what the Constitution otherwise says. PART of what that entails is that: providing for the General Welfare cannot have been intended as a catch-all that trumps the LIMITATIONS on the powers and authority of the Federal Government.

You are asking very good questions. We could all benefit from taking this exercise seriously. (There used to be a time where knowing the roots of one's own country and its government was considered a basic requirement. Maybe we'd have a less fractious society if we all undertook some effort to contemplating these things.)

 

[dblack]

The fraud that is equating money spent to the "will of the people" is quite easily revealed by asking, "Who really spends money in exactly the amounts and at the place and time of their choosing?" That may be possible for the top 1%, or rather the top 0.1%. All others spend their money according to their needs and wants, according to the constraints scarcity imposes on them, and market forces beyond their control, based on inevitable informational deficits / disparities, which is not the same as their "will".

What a curious conception of will! Spending money according to your needs and wants isn't an expression of will? What is? By your accounting, no one has will. What you're saying is that will itself is a fraud, that there's no such thing.

The real fraud, however, is the attempt at equating the moral and political formulation and expression of a will of "We, the People" with mere spending decisions

I'm in no way limiting the concept to spending decisions. I'm just rejecting the campaign to exclude them.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wish you would Ilar. We need folks to participate in this discussion because I think it is an important discussion that needs to happen across the entire country. I put this thread in the CDZ in hopes we could have a grown up discussion free of the food fights and petty ideological or partisan ad hominem and personal sniping. But alas, due to a couple of individuals, such was not to be.

The "rules" of the cdz prevent us from speaking fully and with the same kind of spice we may use outside of the cdz. I stumble over that rule when I make the mistake of entering into the cdz because I fail to realize that I am IN the special arena.

If I see a member of this illustrious board using some ad hominem argument -- generally -- against all conservatives, for example, I might respond with the same style, not realizing that I am violating the rules. In reality, I am not sure why the other member isn't flagged on the play, too. But that's a kind of a non issue.

If I choose to post here realizing WHERE I am, I would try to comply with the rules. But it's so easy to slip-up, I usually avoid this arena when I realize the thread in question has been put up IN this arena.

The flagrant violations have just not been important enough to me to report. And I do understand that the civility requested in the CDZ is boring to a lot of USMB members. But I really did hope for an intelligent discussion of the concepts that should go into a reformed or revised Constitution of the United States of America or why the existing language is sufficient. I do think we are the last generation of Americans with any hope of accomplishing that which is why I think it so important that the discussion begin.

But oh well. If wishes were horses and all that. . . .

I agree. There's no reason to "report" anything. My issue is that if I am dopey enough to rise to some "bait" in a CDZ thread, I might get flagged on it. Maybe even justifiably so. But the other "offender" usually is not.

I confess to a certain lack of care in posting here since I rarely remember that a particular thread is IN a protected forum.

So, back to your OP:

I wouldn't alter the Preamble even though the turn of phrase "more perfect union" clearly doesn't make any sense.

Frankly, other than some AMENDMENTS, I wouldn't change any part of the Constitution. And I would be VERY cautious as to any proposed amendments, too. Even the crystal clear words of the Constitution get "interpreted." I'd hate to think what an activist liberal court would do to some murky attempts to change it.

It is the existing 'murkiness' that I hoped to address.

I don't have any problem with the existing Preamble either, BUT, if we are going to clear up some of the more loosely translated clauses of the existing Constitution, it made sense to me to reflect that in the Preamble. And believe me I have as much fear and trepidation as anybody of what certain activists would do with the Constitution given an opportunity to do so.

That is why this thread is not devoted to what 'language' should go into a improved or revised Constitution, but rather what concepts and principles should apply.

For instance, just two of many examples:

What is the 'general welfare'?
The leftists/statists/liberals/progressives/political class most often interpret that as social welfare or the obligation of the federal government to take care of the 'poor' and 'needy' or to enact rules and regulations for behavior or lifestyle that would be for the common good.

The rightwing/libertarians (little "L")/classical liberals/modern day conservatives most often interpret that as policies/regulations that recognize and protect the unalienable rights of the people and enable the private sector to be more innovative, productive, and prosperous.

The wide differences of opinion and broad interpretations of 'general welfare' have resulted in an enormous welfare state of unsustainable entitlements and continues to erode and chip away at our individual liberties, choices, options, and opportunities and moves us ever closer to a totalitarian government. The left mostly defends that as the righteous and good thing. The right mostly objects to that as a destructive and bad thing.

A reformed Constitution would clearly spell out what the 'general welfare' is.

What right to bear arms does the Second Amendment protect?

In the Founder's day, 'arms' consisted of muskets, single shot pistols, swords, knives, and cannon. And the right of the private citizen to have and utilize such weapons for his/her own purposes and self defense short of violating the rights of others was clear, understood, and considered inviolate.

Now 'arms' can range from air rifles to shotguns or hunting rifles to fully automatic rifles to machine guns to land mines to hand grenades to battle tanks to fighter jets to nuclear submarines and ICBMs. And various factions in America have very different points of view of which of these the private citizen should be able to own.

A reformed constitution would clearly spell out what the citizen's 'right to bear arms' constitutionally protects.

I will take the last two questions out of order. The right to bear arms has almost nothing at all to do with military service. How do I know? Historical and JUDICIAL analysis of the right to bear arms as reflected in the SCOTUS decisions in Heller and McDonald. Some very good scholarly analysis in those opinions. The bottom line is that we now see that the Second Amendment's guarantee was of a RIGHT that per-existed the Constitution. And those two SCOTUS decisions, taken as a whole, make it clear that the RIGHT is not so broad as to deny the government the ability to impose REASONABLE restrictions (such as licensing laws) provided that THOSE licensing laws do not become a back-door method for banning or prohibiting gun ownership. And the SCOTUS also opined that the primary right to be vindicated is weapon possession for home protection. On that last basis, I believe it is fair to say that the right to bear arms does not include tanks or nukes or grenades.

As to what is meant (and what was intended to be understood) by the phrase "general welfare," that is far too long a story to go into here. Suffice it to say that it is part of the PREAMBLE which gives guidance to interpreting what the Constitution otherwise says. PART of what that entails is that: providing for the General Welfare cannot have been intended as a catch-all that trumps the LIMITATIONS on the powers and authority of the Federal Government.

You are asking very good questions. We could all benefit from taking this exercise seriously. (There used to be a time where knowing the roots of one's own country and its government was considered a basic requirement. Maybe we'd have a less fractious society if we all undertook some effort to contemplating these things.)

Indeed. Because there is so wide a difference of opinion in modern day America as to what the 'General Welfare' is or what it was intended to be and because there is such broad diversity in conviction re how much authority the federal government should have over the manufacture, sale, and possession of various kinds of weaponry--even courts have not agreed on all components--it is obvious that the language is no longer clear or obvious as to intent.

For instance, you seem to argue that there is no Second Amendment protection for the right to own hand grenades or nukes or battle tanks, yet there are staunch libertarians who would and do strongly disagree with you on that. Which of you would be able to formulate the better argument in favor of your conviction?

And the courts are not entirely helpful on these issues as they seem to change their mind from generation to generation or differ in opinion based on ideology.

And, as you say, too many these days, including officials on the bench, do not seem to study the founding documents and original intent any more or accept that such is the way things ought to be understood and interpreted.

So I do think some clarification along with some re-education is in order. And it will be just as tough to come to an agreement now as it was for the Founders back then.

But I think the discussion needs to happen.

 

[Foxfyre]

Consider how politically charged Supreme Court appointments are. The hue and cry from the people is not for competent judges of demonstrated judicial temperament who pledge to uphold the spirit and intent of the Constitution and the law. The demand is that the court be at least 'balanced' between those who are pro amnesty and pro immigration enforcement, between those who are pro life and pro choice, between those who are Second Amendment defenders and those who are pro gun control, between those who are pro big government power and those who favor limited government, between those who are Constitutional originalists and those who see the Constitution as a living document subject to broad interpretation according to existing needs and problems.

Why should a judge's ideology matter if the courts are not actually making law rather than interpreting law?

 

[dcraelin]

Yes, that was actually a big part of what I meant, too. In an elected representative government, is wealth distribution by government coercive or the way the people, through their elected reps, want?

That only ever represents what the majority of the people want. It's a violation of the will of everyone else. That's the problem with majority rule government. That's why we should avoid it where universal conformity isn't necessary. Letting people distribute their money as they see fit, according to their own individual values, is a far more accurate expression of the will of the people.

There are also, I am certain, differences of opinion about what are or are not coercive business practices which could also be part of the question.

It is just another indicator of how these types of questions are complex and can have more than one possible answer/solution, I think.

Agreed.

Would you agree that put into the simplest terms, it comes down to the right/ability of the people to use the resources they lawfully/ethically acquired as THEY choose to use them as opposed to somebody else having ability/authority to take those resources and use for something else?

I suppose. But I think there is a valid role for majority rule. There are circumstances where it's important for society to agree on one course and mandate conformity.

Yes. So long as our unalienable rights are protected, otherwise the only way that social contract can work at all is via majority vote. We being human beings are not often going to agree on every single issue. So whether it is to vote for what color the new carpet in the church sanctuary will be or whether to install a water system for the village or whether to ratify a new amendment for the Constitution, a majority vote is the only democratic way to go.

However, in the context of two wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner, we also need to include in the debate how much one group of Americans can impose on another.

I have always thought that the property owners who will be funding the new school or whatever with property taxes should be the only ones to vote for that rather than all the non property owners having a vote in that.

And I have long thought that only tax payers should have a say about how much their taxes will be.

The one thing I haven't figured out is how to accomplish that and still have representative government rather than do everything by referendum.

u know, every one lives somewhere.....and renters generally pay more in taxes per square foot of space than owners....so your concern over voting for funding of schools is misplaced I think.

I also think you r too focused on phrase "general welfare", it maybe, perhaps, did attempt to get at spending in a formulaic way....tho I think it was just a manner of speaking,..a common phrase. What it boils down to is representation....if the Congress mirrors the will of the population closely I'd be fairly satisfied with almost anything they want to spend money on.

 

[candycorn]

You need some ambiguity in the document....otherwise you end up like Texas with amendments added on every other year or so.

What shouldn't be ambiguous is the conduct of office holders.

 

[Statistikhengst]

You need some ambiguity in the document....otherwise you end up like Texas with amendments added on every other year or so.

What shouldn't be ambiguous is the conduct of office holders.

Yepp.

 

[Olde Europe]

What a curious conception of will! Spending money according to your needs and wants isn't an expression of will?

Yeah, it would appear the confirmation is in now. Having crippled my argument, you apparently thought that the remainder would create a straw man you can handle. I apologize for having mistaken you for a serious debater.

_______________________________________

Consider how politically charged Supreme Court appointments are. The hue and cry from the people is not for competent judges of demonstrated judicial temperament who pledge to uphold the spirit and intent of the Constitution and the law.

Surprisingly, I sort of agree with that, in that the politicization of the courts (and not just the Supreme Court) is one of the many troubling ills infesting the U.S. government. Quite unsurprisingly, we'll probably not agree on identifying the main symptoms, or the most odious figures owing their high office to the politically charged nomination process, as I think that the major fault lines lie between Corporatocracy / Plutocracy and concern for the common (wo) man, and Checks & Balances and the (imperial) Unitary Executive Theory. Neither, I guess, will we find much common ground on the possible remedies, as I think the rot starts with too many college departments taken over by, and dependent on, corporate funds (with the concomitant pollution of science as taught to students), and it doesn't end with bought and paid-for Representatives in the pockets of the Corporatocracy voting on the nominees.

 

[dblack]

What a curious conception of will! Spending money according to your needs and wants isn't an expression of will?

Yeah, it would appear the confirmation is in now. Having crippled my argument, you apparently thought that the remainder would create a straw man you can handle. I apologize for having mistaken you for a serious debater.

I don't think I'm that interested in "serious debate", at least not in any competitive sense. I'd rather get into the ideas and reasons why people hold different political convictions. And I think the values invoked by the "will of the people" or the "We the People" slogans offer a great opportunity in that regard.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why should a judge's ideology matter if the courts are not actually making law rather than interpreting law?

Because the Libertarian ideology of the current SCOTUS majority imposed the horrendous Citizens United decision on this nation thereby exacerbating the problem of Congress becoming a fully owned subsidiary of the Koch bros.

 

[dblack]

I want to clarify what I'm getting at by contrasting the "will of the people" as represented by majority rule with the will of ALL the people as an aggregate of all our individual wills, particular in my observation that free trade represents the will of ALL the people better than government intervention.

I'm not making the "greed is good" argument. Even in a perfectly free market, people will choose to spend their money on things that arguably aren't good for them. People will get rich peddling vices. People will make money catering to delusions and insecurities. But as long as transactions aren't coerced, as long as we're not lying, cheating or stealing in the process, we're spending our money on the things we want and need. And the end result IS a product of the "will of the people", not just the the majority, but all the people combined. It doesn't exclude anyone's values in favor of conformity but, rather, includes everyone's values to the extent they are shared by others. In essence, "every vote counts".

Obviously, economic decisions aren't the only way people express their will, but they're an important aspect of it. And I think it's just as important to protect that kind of freedom as it is to protect liberties like freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, that was actually a big part of what I meant, too. In an elected representative government, is wealth distribution by government coercive or the way the people, through their elected reps, want?

That only ever represents what the majority of the people want. It's a violation of the will of everyone else. That's the problem with majority rule government. That's why we should avoid it where universal conformity isn't necessary. Letting people distribute their money as they see fit, according to their own individual values, is a far more accurate expression of the will of the people.

There are also, I am certain, differences of opinion about what are or are not coercive business practices which could also be part of the question.

It is just another indicator of how these types of questions are complex and can have more than one possible answer/solution, I think.

Agreed.

Would you agree that put into the simplest terms, it comes down to the right/ability of the people to use the resources they lawfully/ethically acquired as THEY choose to use them as opposed to somebody else having ability/authority to take those resources and use for something else?

I suppose. But I think there is a valid role for majority rule. There are circumstances where it's important for society to agree on one course and mandate conformity.

Yes. So long as our unalienable rights are protected, otherwise the only way that social contract can work at all is via majority vote. We being human beings are not often going to agree on every single issue. So whether it is to vote for what color the new carpet in the church sanctuary will be or whether to install a water system for the village or whether to ratify a new amendment for the Constitution, a majority vote is the only democratic way to go.

However, in the context of two wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner, we also need to include in the debate how much one group of Americans can impose on another.

I have always thought that the property owners who will be funding the new school or whatever with property taxes should be the only ones to vote for that rather than all the non property owners having a vote in that.

And I have long thought that only tax payers should have a say about how much their taxes will be.

The one thing I haven't figured out is how to accomplish that and still have representative government rather than do everything by referendum.

u know, every one lives somewhere.....and renters generally pay more in taxes per square foot of space than owners....so your concern over voting for funding of schools is misplaced I think.

I also think you r too focused on phrase "general welfare", it maybe, perhaps, did attempt to get at spending in a formulaic way....tho I think it was just a manner of speaking,..a common phrase. What it boils down to is representation....if the Congress mirrors the will of the population closely I'd be fairly satisfied with almost anything they want to spend money on.

The reason I am focused on 'general welfare' is because of the very broad and conflicting opinions re what the phrase means. And I would hope that a new or reformed Constitution would spell out exactly what is meant by the General Welfare when we give the federal government responsibility to promote it or provide it or whatever the will of the people is in that regard. IMO, it is precisely because the term is so ambiguous in interpretation these days that we have so many of the problems we now have.

But you do make a good argument re the renters. Yes, the property taxes the property owner must pay are included in the price of the rents charged, and those renters also often have children who attend the public schools and of course they also utilize city services that everybody else utilizes. But their share of the burden of apartment dwellers is born by many while the single family property owner shoulders the whole load. So yes, all that has to factor in on who should be able to vote for property taxes.

It ultimately comes down to the one point tied up with the 'general welfare' and who pays the bills. Should those who suffer little or no consequences of a vote or who want to increase their own fortunes at the expense of everybody else be able to vote on how much taxes other people pay?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I want to clarify what I'm getting at by contrasting the "will of the people" as represented by majority rule with the will of ALL the people as an aggregate of all our individual wills, particular in my observation that free trade represents the will of ALL the people better than government intervention.

I'm not making the "greed is good" argument. Even in a perfectly free market, people will choose to spend their money on things that arguably aren't good for them. People will get rich peddling vices. People will make money catering to delusions and insecurities. But as long as transactions aren't coerced, as long as we're not lying, cheating or stealing in the process, we're spending our money on the things we want and need. And the end result IS a product of the "will of the people", not just the the majority, but all the people combined. It doesn't exclude anyone's values in favor of conformity but, rather, includes everyone's values to the extent they are shared by others. In essence, "every vote counts".

Obviously, economic decisions aren't the only way people express their will, but they're an important aspect of it. And I think it's just as important to protect that kind of freedom as it is to protect liberties like freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Since many of those transactions will occur as interstate commerce you have justified the Federal government having the right to regulate all such transactions to ensure that there is no "lying, cheating or stealing" going on.

We are making progress here.

 

[Derideo_Te]

That only ever represents what the majority of the people want. It's a violation of the will of everyone else. That's the problem with majority rule government. That's why we should avoid it where universal conformity isn't necessary. Letting people distribute their money as they see fit, according to their own individual values, is a far more accurate expression of the will of the people.
Agreed.

Would you agree that put into the simplest terms, it comes down to the right/ability of the people to use the resources they lawfully/ethically acquired as THEY choose to use them as opposed to somebody else having ability/authority to take those resources and use for something else?

I suppose. But I think there is a valid role for majority rule. There are circumstances where it's important for society to agree on one course and mandate conformity.

Yes. So long as our unalienable rights are protected, otherwise the only way that social contract can work at all is via majority vote. We being human beings are not often going to agree on every single issue. So whether it is to vote for what color the new carpet in the church sanctuary will be or whether to install a water system for the village or whether to ratify a new amendment for the Constitution, a majority vote is the only democratic way to go.

However, in the context of two wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner, we also need to include in the debate how much one group of Americans can impose on another.

I have always thought that the property owners who will be funding the new school or whatever with property taxes should be the only ones to vote for that rather than all the non property owners having a vote in that.

And I have long thought that only tax payers should have a say about how much their taxes will be.

The one thing I haven't figured out is how to accomplish that and still have representative government rather than do everything by referendum.

u know, every one lives somewhere.....and renters generally pay more in taxes per square foot of space than owners....so your concern over voting for funding of schools is misplaced I think.

I also think you r too focused on phrase "general welfare", it maybe, perhaps, did attempt to get at spending in a formulaic way....tho I think it was just a manner of speaking,..a common phrase. What it boils down to is representation....if the Congress mirrors the will of the population closely I'd be fairly satisfied with almost anything they want to spend money on.

The reason I am focused on 'general welfare' is because of the very broad and conflicting opinions re what the phrase means. And I would hope that a new or reformed Constitution would spell out exactly what is meant by the General Welfare when we give the federal government responsibility to promote it or provide it or whatever the will of the people is in that regard. IMO, it is precisely because the term is so ambiguous in interpretation these days that we have so many of the problems we now have.

But you do make a good argument re the renters. Yes, the property taxes the property owner must pay are included in the price of the rents charged, and those renters also often have children who attend the public schools and of course they also utilize city services that everybody else utilizes. But their share of the burden of apartment dwellers is born by many while the single family property owner shoulders the whole load. So yes, all that has to factor in on who should be able to vote for property taxes.

It ultimately comes down to the one point tied up with the 'general welfare' and who pays the bills. Should those who suffer little or no consequences of a vote or who want to increase their own fortunes at the expense of everybody else be able to vote on how much taxes other people pay?

Why must retired people who no longer have children in the school system pay for the education of children not their own?

Because the value of their home is dependent upon the value of the school system in which they reside.

Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. Oliver Wendell Holmes.

 

[Montrovant]

I want to clarify what I'm getting at by contrasting the "will of the people" as represented by majority rule with the will of ALL the people as an aggregate of all our individual wills, particular in my observation that free trade represents the will of ALL the people better than government intervention.

I'm not making the "greed is good" argument. Even in a perfectly free market, people will choose to spend their money on things that arguably aren't good for them. People will get rich peddling vices. People will make money catering to delusions and insecurities. But as long as transactions aren't coerced, as long as we're not lying, cheating or stealing in the process, we're spending our money on the things we want and need. And the end result IS a product of the "will of the people", not just the the majority, but all the people combined. It doesn't exclude anyone's values in favor of conformity but, rather, includes everyone's values to the extent they are shared by others. In essence, "every vote counts".

Obviously, economic decisions aren't the only way people express their will, but they're an important aspect of it. And I think it's just as important to protect that kind of freedom as it is to protect liberties like freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

I'm curious as to why you think economic decisions represent the will of the entire people rather than being another form of majority rule.

For example, if a person spends their money at a particular establishment, but said establishment goes out of business because another, similar one is more popular, how is that substantially different from a majority vote in government? In either case it is the will of the majority, not the will of all, that is being represented.

There are many different analogies that could be made to show how economic decisions are no more the 'will of all the people combined' than are majority votes.

 

[dblack]

I want to clarify what I'm getting at by contrasting the "will of the people" as represented by majority rule with the will of ALL the people as an aggregate of all our individual wills, particular in my observation that free trade represents the will of ALL the people better than government intervention.

I'm not making the "greed is good" argument. Even in a perfectly free market, people will choose to spend their money on things that arguably aren't good for them. People will get rich peddling vices. People will make money catering to delusions and insecurities. But as long as transactions aren't coerced, as long as we're not lying, cheating or stealing in the process, we're spending our money on the things we want and need. And the end result IS a product of the "will of the people", not just the the majority, but all the people combined. It doesn't exclude anyone's values in favor of conformity but, rather, includes everyone's values to the extent they are shared by others. In essence, "every vote counts".

Obviously, economic decisions aren't the only way people express their will, but they're an important aspect of it. And I think it's just as important to protect that kind of freedom as it is to protect liberties like freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

I'm curious as to why you think economic decisions represent the will of the entire people rather than being another form of majority rule.

For example, if a person spends their money at a particular establishment, but said establishment goes out of business because another, similar one is more popular, how is that substantially different from a majority vote in government? In either case it is the will of the majority, not the will of all, that is being represented.

Because it doesn't require the will of the majority to maintain a business. People can, and do, thrive economically catering to minorities.

There are many different analogies that could be made to show how economic decisions are no more the 'will of all the people combined' than are majority votes.

The sum of all our economic decisions produces an aggregate that includes the values of everyone. Whereas legislation passed by majority vote at best produces a single decision that everyone must conform to.